The judiciary waits for justice

Nepal's judiciary is currently in a state of 'wait for justice,' grappling with a significant burden of pending cases, controversies surrounding judicial appointments, a lack of transparency in selection processes, and ideological polarization. These factors, combined with media influence and institutional ego, are creating a situation where the courts appear to be moving away from their ideal form.

The dignity of the court is not built on fear or the issuance of orders, but on trust earned through impartial decisions, institutional decorum, and sensitivity to the public's pursuit of justice. A court's greatness lies not in its power, but in ensuring that even the weakest citizens feel their voices will be heard. However, the current structure of the courts lacks sufficient inclusivity, failing to reflect the diversity of society, which contributes to an image that feels distant and elitist to common citizens.

Furthermore, a concerning 'syndicate culture' is developing within the courts, where appointments, transfers, and opportunities are influenced by proximity to powerful groups, thereby weakening institutional impartiality. The character of the court should be principle-centric, not person- or group-centric. The presence of 'middlemen' and informal networks influencing justice, beyond legal arguments, severely damages the court's moral credibility. For justice to be perceived as fair, it is crucial not only to be impartial but also to appear impartial, a standard the judiciary must uphold.